Tag Archives: disarmament

An international symbol of peace, an olive branch- bearing white dove uses its wing to hold back the weight of nuclear arms

Although many American citizens believe that the Korean War ended in 1953, armed conflict ceased merely by way of an armistice. This truce is one of the only things that “technically prevents North Korea and the U.S. – along with its ally South Korea—from resuming the war, as no peace treaty has ever been signed” (“The Korean War Armistice”). Since the Cold War, the conflict on the Korean Peninsula has been put on the back burner, but tensions still boil and the relationship with the United States still has friction (“The Korean War”). “Both sides regularly accuse the other of violating the agreement, but the accusations have become more frequent as tensions rise over North Korea’s nuclear program” (“The Korean War Armistice”). The diplomatic complexities of recent efforts to limit North Korea’s nuclear arms capabilities echo earlier attempts made in the 1930’s to attain disarmament.

In order to understand the geopolitical chessboard, it is important to understand different stakeholders and their issues add to the boiling tensions throughout the region. Since the armistice, the creation of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) has separated the peninsula into two different nations: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK (a.k.a. North Korea) and the Republic of Korea or ROK (a.k.a. South Korea) (Tilelli et al). In the decades since the Korean conflict, the northern nation has become a “Hermit Kingdom” (Strand), while the southern nation flourished in the modern world.

Besides the two Koreas, there are complex alliances among regional stakeholders. China, North Korea’s closest ally, “condemns its neighbor’s nuclear developments” but has opposed “harsh international sanctions on North Korea in the hope of avoiding a regime collapse and a refugee influx” (Albert). Russia, a neighbor of North Korea, supports a halt on nuclear tests and calls for North Korea and the United States to cooperate and reduce tensions (“Russia ‘Welcomes’ North Korea’s Nuclear Declaration”). Japan, a United States ally, “has called the prospect of a nuclear-capable North Korea ‘absolutely unacceptable’ and said the security situation…is the severest since the Second World War” (McKirdy). Along with threats to North Korean allies and American allies, the Korean Peninsula has also threatened the United States itself (“North Korea Nuclear Timeline Fast Facts). “Despite the difficulty of the challenge, the danger posed by North Korea is sufficiently severe, and the costs of inaction and acquiescence so high, that the United States and its partners must continue to press for denuclearization” (Tilelli et al).

As of the writing of this blog, the world is holding its breath due to daily, sometimes hourly, developments in U.S. – North Korean relations. While always fraught, the relationship between the United States and North Korea has been especially complicated since the election of U.S. President Donald Trump. Using his unconventional (un)diplomatic tactics, he has made rude tweets and comments about the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un. For example, on September 22, 2017, upon agreement with South Korea to “increase economic and diplomatic pressure against North Korea, Trump provocatively called the North Korean dictator “Rocket Man” (Hamedy). North Korea, in turn, successfully tested an “intercontinental ballistic missile” that landed a mere 210 kilometers west of Japan (Hamedy). North Korea has even threatened that it has the technological capacity to “reach U.S. soil with nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles” (“North Korean Nuclear Negotiations: A Brief History”).

Remarkably, however, there also have been positive developments in the U.S. – North Korea relationship. On March 8, 2018, after a meeting at the White House with the South Korean National Security Advisor, President Trump suddenly agreed to meet with Kim Jong Un if North Korea “pledged to refrain from further nuclear tests and move toward denuclearization” (Vitali). Six Short weeks later, the two Korean heads of state shook hands and together stepped across the DMZ as a gesture of peace on April 27, 2018 (CNBC). Recently, there has been preliminary talks among the U.S., ROK, and DPRK officials about a proposed peace summit scheduled to take place on June 12, 2018 in Singapore (Diamond). Progress towards the summit was advanced due, in part, to the release of three American hostages from North Korea (Holland). At a future summit, the United States will try to persuade North Korea to “abandon nuclear weapons and ballistic missile tests” (Holland).

However, recent remarks by President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, have hurt the possibility for the summit. On May 16, 2018, Bolton suggested “that the White House was looking at Libya as an example of how it handled negotiations with North Korea to denuclearize” (Stracqualursi). North Korea took this remark as an “’awfully sinister move’” to imperil the Kim regime” (Stracqualursi). Thus, as of yesterday (May 17, 2018), plans for the proposed summit, seem to have completely fallen apart. Coinciding with Bolton’s remark, annual U.S.-South Korea military drills were used as an excuse by North Korea to suspend the peace summit (Cohen). Fortunately, there is still hope, as South Korea is “attempting to salvage peace talks with North Korea and play mediator for the summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un” (Sampathkumar). From personal insults and threatening missile tests to diplomatic handshakes and proposed peace summits, diplomatic relations have been a wild ride. “Diplomacy between the United States and North Korea has gone through familiar cycles of long stagnation, followed by brief bursts of hope and then inevitable disappointment, typically after North Korea reneged” (Landler).

Global denuclearization is a critical issue of our time. The anonymously illustrated cartoon atop this blog (which originally appeared on “A Nuclear War Planner’s Guide to Resisting the Bomb- Infoshop News,” a blog by Robert Levering) depicts a white dove holding an olive branch in its mouth. Both the dove and the olive branch signify “peaceful intentions” (“Dove with Olive Branch as Symbol of Peace”). The dove in the cartoon represents efforts to fend off nuclear destruction. The weight of nuclear weapons, indicated by the “radiation warning symbol,” (Frame) bearing down on the achievement of peace.

With denuclearization talks between the United States and North Korea, we must know what each party demands. The original definition of the term “denuclearization” is “to prohibit the deployment or construction of nuclear weapons” (“Denuclearize”). Unfortunately, this is not the working definition that either side, the United States or North Korea, is currently using. The United States, for one, wants North Korea to hand over its nuclear weapons and missile systems and allow international inspectors to check whether denuclearization is being upheld (Fifield). However, for North Korea denuclearization means mutual steps to eradicate nuclear weapons and requiring the United States to remove its nuclear umbrella (Fifield). The “nuclear umbrella” (Lewis) is a security arrangement in which participating nations consent to the possible use of nuclear weapons for their defense (“Nuclear Umbrellas and Umbrella States”). This is a danger towards the stakeholders for the United States, as the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. protects Japan and South Korea, however, there has been some other compromises on the table. For example, North Korea will relinquish weapons only if the United States ends its military alliance with South Korea. Unfortunately, the compromise of denuclearization seems far-fetched, especially since both nations have fundamental differences on the definition of what they are trying to achieve.

Each side of the conflict has fundamental differences on the definition of denuclearization. For its part, North Korea has declared a halt to nuclear testing but views its nuclear arsenal as an insurance policy for defending peace for future generations (Borger). The United States, on the other hand, has decided to sustain a policy of “maximum pressure” on North Korea until the demands of a completely denuclearized Korean Peninsula are met (Borger).

Jeffrey Lewis ponders the complexities of the term “denuclearization” in his opinion piece, “The Word That Could Help the World Avoid Nuclear War” (Lewis). Both “denuclearization” and “disarmament” are terms used in diplomatic negotiations to de-escalate tensions and prevent war. These issues are reminiscent of the early 1930’s when the victorious nations of World War I called for a discussion on arms reduction. Their attempts at international demilitarization, culminating in the Geneva Conference of 1932, were the subjects of an editorial – “Disarmament”—and an accompanying cartoon –“Sword is Needed”—published in the Dallas Morning News on October 29, 1932. The illustration, by John Knott, depicted the tax burden of maintain armaments to the common man and the difficulties or reaching widely agreed terms for disarmament. His cartoon illustrated the complexities of previous disarmament conferences and exemplified that the only way to solve the problem was with bold action to ensure peace. Both cartoons emphasize the burdens of armaments, the obstacles to global demilitarization, well as the fragility of peace.

Landler, Mark. “With U.S. and North Korea, a Repeated History of Hope and Disappointment.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Mar. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/north-korea-us-history-negotiations.html.

Sang-hun, Choe. “North and South Korea Set Bold Goals: A Final Peace and No Nuclear Arms.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/world/asia/north-korea-south-kim-jong-un.html.

A “Sincere Desire to Disarm” is the sword that could cut the metaphoric “Gordian Knot” binding exhausted taxpayers to the economic burdens of world armaments.

At the end of World War I, a large portion of the globe was in shambles. The United States as well as other victors of the war gained immense power and enjoyed economic growth, that was very short lived. In the late 1920’s, the stock market crashed causing the United States and the world to fall into the longest economic crisis, the Great Depression (“The Great Depression”). The cartoon by John Knott, “Sword is Needed,” was published in the Dallas Morning News on October 29, 1932 to raise awareness about the political and economic problems that arose as different nations strived for a compromise on the specific terms for world disarmament as well as the high price that taxpayers paid in order to maintain national arsenals. Accompanying the cartoon was an editorial, “Disarmament Again,” that discussed the obstacles to reaching a compromise on arms limitations at the upcoming Geneva Conference in November of 1932.

After World War I, “a general disarmament conference had first been proposed for 1925, but it did not actually meet until 1932 due to a lack of enthusiasm,” (“Disarmament”). The Geneva Conference of 1932 was about the limitation of arms, which ironically aroused diplomatic tensions across the globe. While non-attendance was one issue, once at the meeting many nations could not agree on the details requirements of arms limitations. No country would act, unless a different nation agreed to specific terms.

For example, the French Premier had prepared a plan that opposed the amount of drastic reductions on arms limitation that would be presented during the convention, while the United States and United Kingdom had held confidential negotiations on naval limitations (“Disarmament Again”). Although the United States and United Kingdom were the main superpowers to call for disarmament, the US threatened to build up the maximum amount of weaponry as a precaution because the UK was the strongest naval power. Italy had announced its willingness to cooperate on the limitations; Russia, on the other hand, had offered plans for complete disarmament (“Disarmament Again”). Meanwhile, Japan had declared itself to be compliant – but still demanded the necessity of naval defenses in order to protect its home waters against problems in the Far East. Germany, however, denounced limitations and demanded release from any limitations on arms. In short, so many different rivalries and points of friction, no one was willing to compromise, and there was no easy way to reach an agreement.

Understood against this historical backdrop, in Kott’s cartoon the large tank – labelled “World’s Armaments”—is a significant object—a point also emphasized in the editorial. The weight of the tank symbolizes the burden of armaments on each nation involved in the Geneva Conference. The utter size of the looming tank, even in the background, represents the scale and difficulties of reaching widely agreed terms for disarmament. Its massiveness represents the complex problems of national armaments and military budgets funded by the average taxpaying citizen.

In the foreground, a small man is tethered to the big tank. He is dragging the heavy burden of the “world’s armaments.” This beleaguered man represented taxpayers. As previously mentioned, this cartoon was drawn during the Great Depression. People in the United States, as well as abroad, were suffering from the stock market crash and barely had enough money to get by. The lone man representing exhausted taxpayers worldwide, slavishly drags the tank. He has no control over how his money will be spent, for arms rather than a prosperous economic future.

While dragging his burden, the taxpayer walks over an array of failed attempts at disarmament. The volume of scattered papers represents the many previous failures at compromise on numerous aspects of arms limitations (e.g., “Plan for Disarmament,” “Conference for Armament,” “Plan for Arms Limitation”). This complex issue had been long discussed with little or no result. In Knott’s cartoon, the difficulties of previous disarmament conferences are captured in the paper titled, “Plan for Untying the Gordian Knot.”

Disarmament deals are like a metaphorical knot with different ends being pulled in different directions. This metaphor is very important to the cartoon. In the middle of the illustration, there is a giant, complex knot—a Gordian Knot—that binds the taxpayers to the tank. “Gordian Knot,” a proverbial term used to describe a complex problem that is solved through bold action (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica). The origin of the term is traced back to Alexander the Great’s march through Anatolia to the city of Gordium (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica). In order to conquer Asia, Alexander the Great had to untie the complicated knot. Unlike his predecessors who had failed, with a swift move of his sword, Alexander cut the knot. John Knott’s cartoon implies that similarly bold action was required to achieve disarmament at the Geneva Conference. The complicated puzzle, or knot, of trying to please every nation and honor their preferences for arms limitations could only be achieved if every country attending the conference had the “sincere desire to disarm.”

Benito Mussolini addresses the world from the city of Turin, Italy on October 23, 1932.

Telling the World by John Knott depicts the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini during his 1932 address in the city of Turin, Italy. The speech occurred in the midst of the tenth anniversary of the Fascist Party’s March on Rome in October 1922, when Mussolini was appointed as Italy’s fascist head of government by King Victor Emmanuel III (De Grand 513). The Italian dictator’s balcony, illustrated in Knott’s cartoon, evokes the baroque architectural style of Turin’s buildings. As Mussolini stated in his speech, “Turin is a Roman city,” and according to his regime, 1932 was Year X of “The New Era” in the “Third Rome” (“Benito Mussolini” 273). However, by the time of Mussolini’s visit to Turin, Europe was still reeling from the consequences of World War I. Despite fervent calls by European allies for the cancellation of German war reparations, emphasized at the Lausanne Conference in the summer of 1932, the United States refused to accept the mandatory condition that all European debts to the U.S. be cancelled as well (Bemis 55). This decision, combined with the League of Nations’ insistence that Germany was to be denied juridical parity, only served to aggravate tensions in the region. Furthermore, looming over the world and compounding the western dilemma was The Great Depression, a burdening force which would not cease for a decade.

In Knott’s cartoon, Mussolini is holding a globe before him as he asserts his position on the world’s affairs. His discontented expression and clenched fist indicate that he his making demands to resolve conflicts threatening his regime. Depicted on the globe, Africa and Europe face the audience, as North America is subjected to the Italian dictator’s scrutinous glare. This scowling expression carries a direct challenge to the United States, “. . . the ship of reparations and war debts entered the port of Lausanne. Are the great people of the star-spangled republic going to send this vessel, which was filled with sorrow and blood of so many peoples, back to the open waters?” (Mussolini 1932). In this statement he addresses the imperious nature of the U.S. pursuit of war reparations from Europe, and its significance in impacting western politics. Mussolini’s Turin speech took place only a month prior to the US Presidential Election of 1932. According to “Mussolini and the Crisis,” the Dallas Morning News editorial accompanying Knott’s cartoon, then-candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt was thought to have been more sympathetic toward the idea of debt cancellation than his opponent, Herbert Hoover. Mussolini appeared to time his appeal to the US in order to influence the vote of Italian Americans toward Roosevelt (Dallas Morning News 2). The Lausanne Conference was a pivotal point in the decision to end or continue war debts, and the United States was the eminent faction in determining the outcome. Unfortunately, The Great Depression was well entrenched in America during this time, leading the struggling nation to assert its demands for reparations to a continent likewise hindered by economic downturn.

The historically industrial city of Turin was home to many unemployed and disgruntled labor workers at the time of Mussolini’s 1932 address. As the Dallas Morning News editorial begins, “Premier Mussolini took his life in his hands when he addressed the semihostile citizens of Turin” (2). Workers throughout Italy directed their blame and animosity toward the current political institutions whose policies they believed were failing to remedy the country’s postwar ailments (Atkins 271). Adding more pressure to the desperate nation and to Mussolini’s government was The Great Depression, which had begun with the Wall Street collapse only three years prior.

Italy’s involvement in World War I came at an immense cost. Though neutral at its commencement, the Treaty of London eventually situated Italy in the conflict alongside France and Britain, with promises from the Entente powers that Italy would be compensated with sought-after territories in Austria-Hungary and Africa (Karabell 96). By the war’s conclusion, however, Italy’s military was nearly decimated; and the country was economically, politically, and socially ravaged (Atkins 270). Further deteriorating postwar conditions in Italy, its efforts as one of the Allies against the Central Powers were minimized at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, and Italy received meager recompense for its losses (Atkins 271). Postwar debt, high inflation and unemployment, as well as low morale resulting from enormous war casualties, left the population embittered and desperate for change (Atkins 271). Hostility and violence in the country, along with radical war-induced nationalism, instigated the formation of an aggressive political party grounded in Mussolini’s fascist ideology (“World War I” 2765).

Although he did not explicitly mention France, Mussolini certainly held a vendetta against the country, as evident in his Turin speech. As “Mussolini and the Crisis” editorial points out, Turin is located near the Italian border with France, and Mussolini appeared to choose this city for his address in order to send a provocative message (Dallas Morning News 2). Much of Italy, including its head of government, still resented France for the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles. France gained a great deal of territory while Italy received little of what it was promised in comparison. This issue was also of great concern for Mussolini when considering the state of Germany in the European scene.

The League of Nations, founded by the Treaty of Versailles, was hesitant to grant Germany juridical parity within the organization, despite that it was a member. Its most prominent and influential member, of course, was France. Mussolini feared that France sought hegemony in Europe through its recent territorial acquisitions and its refusal to treat Germany as an equal country. In his Turin speech, he emphasized the importance of German parity in the League of Nations as necessary to prevent hegemonies in Europe, and indicated that Italy was prepared to resist any attempts by France to establish hegemony over another European country. This decision to side with Germany was a prelude to the fascist alliance that would form between the two countries in the second World War.

The complexities of western political affairs in the 1930s cannot be understated. By October 1932, Europe had already begun to brew a second world war. The Allies refused to acknowledge the impact of their decisions in formulating the rise of the fascist dictators Mussolini and Hitler. Poor and desperate populations suffering from economic depression rallied behind the aggressive, nationalistic political parties that sought to take advantage of power vacuums left by World War I. At that time, Fascism was a promise to put the unemployed to work, but also an engine of resentment fueled by losses in the Great War. In time these factors would culminate in a conflict far more catastrophic than the one that caused it.

Cartoonist John Knott ridicules the post World War I predicament of U.S. and European relations in regards to the stalemate between war debt revision and disarmament.

If They Would Exchange Presents is a political cartoon by John Francis Knott mocking the predicament of U.S. and European relations post-World War I. It depicts “Europe” giving the gift of disarmament to the U.S., represented by Uncle Sam, in exchange for war debt revisions. The cartoon implies that Europe would disarm if the U.S. would revise, or essentially decrease, European war debt; likewise, the cartoon suggests that the U.S. would gladly decrease European war debt if Europe were to disarm first (Knott 2). The accompanying editorial titled “The Reparations Problem” summarizes the context of the cartoon. It explains that by the end of 1931, the U.S. Congress finally gave approval for a one-year postponement of German reparations, acknowledging a proposal made in the previous year by then President Herbert Hoover. The U.S. Congress did not want to cancel war repayments, as it strongly indicated to the International Committee on Reparations, but instead wanted to suspend payments. The reason for Germany’s inability to pay was that it could only pay from borrowed money that it was no longer able to obtain or from money made off of exports that were heavily tariffed (“The Reparations Problem” 2).

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Serbian nationalists in 1914 catapulted Europe into the First World War. The assassination set off a domino effect, causing country after country to get involved in the escalating conflict that eventually developed into World War I. What ensued after the war was the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, a meeting that established the terms of peace after the war, and during this conference the Treaty of Versailles was established (Cochran). The reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles stated that Germany was to take responsibility for the damages caused by World War I and that it must adhere to a payment schedule to pay back the cost of those damages. The mindset of the United States and its allies was that they were essentially dragged into the war out of obligation, and therefore should be repaid for everything lost in the war. However, it was known that Germany could not pay the entire costs of the war and that it was nearly impossible to create a realistic repayment schedule in 1919, the year that the treaty was signed. The Treaty of Versailles did not have a definitive reparation settlement (Merriman and Winter 2207). Therefore, naturally, Germany wanted debt revisions. Germany, however, wasn’t the only European country in debt. For example, in 1934, Britain still owed the US $4.4 billion of World War I debt (Rohrer). For this reason, Knott’s cartoon depicts “Europe” in need of war debt revision and not just Germany.

The disarmament portion of the cartoon pertains to the U.S.’s insistence on worldwide disarmament, highlighted in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points peace proposal that said, “All countries should reduce their armed forces to the lowest possible levels (Multilateral disarmament.)” (Fuller). The Treaty of Versailles initiated the notion of disarmament by targeting Germany in particular, forcing them to take full blame for World War I and to disarm. “The German army was to be limited to 100,000 men and conscription proscribed; the treaty restricted the Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with a ban on the acquisition or maintenance of a submarine fleet. Moreover, Germany was forbidden to maintain an air force” (“Treaty of Versailles, 1919″). The Treaty’s main concern was the disarmament of Germany. Politicians, journalists, and academics argued at the time that the naval race for arms was one of the major causes of the war. Based on this idea, the victors of the war decided to force Germany to disarm due to its previous invasion attempts toward France. It was thought that by forcing its disarmament, Germany was being stripped of its power to wage war (Merriman and Winter 856). Soon, this philosophy was expanded to include all European nations. “Following the atrocities of World War I, both nations [the U.S. and Great Britain] hoped to avoid any future conflicts, and both faced difficult economic times that restricted military spending. As a consequence, the two governments were willing to consider serious limits on offensive weapons” (World History Encyclopedia 593).

Reduction of conflict, however, wasn’t the only motivation behind disarmament. The Great Depression diverted attention from the issue of disarmament to debt and unemployment. In 1932, everyone owed America money, but because of the depression, few countries could repay their loans. The U.S. decided that if nations didn’t spend money on arms, they would be able to repay the United States; therefore, the U.S. called for worldwide disarmament (Bradley 38).

Knott’s cartoon represents a very circular predicament. The two entities were at a stalemate. The U.S. was the world’s major creditor nation, and in order to get paid back, it insisted on worldwide disarmament so that funds could be redirected to debt repayment. Europe, however, would only disarm if war debts were lowered and revised first. It was as though this political stalemate could only be resolved by some miracle.

That is exactly the point Knott wants to impress upon his audience. The illustration of the Christmas tree, along with the fact that the cartoon was being published on Christmas Eve, gives the cartoon an air of Christmas spirit. The term “Christmas Miracle” is typically used to emphasize how unlikely an event is to occur, and that seems to be what Knott is implying as the only solution to this conflict – a Christmas Miracle – given how unlikely a compromise seemed in 1931. What is also humorous is how nonchalant the gift exchange is, almost trivializing the damages and lives lost in the war. It is as if there is no rivalry or conflict of interest between the two parties; it’s not as aggressive, or desperate, or even as somber as one would expect. It is definitely not a gift exchange of good will either; Christmas is regarded as a time of selfless generosity and community, a time of giving rather than receiving without the expectation of anything in return. However this is a very self-interested exchange, defying the traditional, selfless ideals of Christmas. These contradictions serve as indirect attacks on the U.S. and Europe’s inability to reach an agreement.

If They Would Exchange Presents is a political cartoon by John Knott that focused attention on and mocked the diplomatic gridlock between the U.S. and Europe. It uses the setting and themes of Christmas to criticize the two sides’ uncompromising stances toward disarmament and war debt revisions, comparing the successful exchange of “presents” to a Christmas Miracle. The cartoon serves as political commentary on post-World War I negotiations and ranks as one of Knott’s many politically motivated cartoons.

Merriman, John, and Jay Winter. “Disarmament.” Child Care to Futurism. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006. 855. Print. Vol. 2 of Europe since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction.

Merriman, John, and Jay Winter. “Reparations.” Nagy to Switzerland. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006. 2206. Print. Vol. 4 of Europe since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction.